1904-08-04 — Page 3

Page

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, 3rd August.

IN APPELLAte JurisdiCTION,

BeyoreTuem: HonoreeSIR W. M. GooDMAN (Caner JustICH) & T. SerCOMBE SMITH

PINE JUDGE).

JAMBOO POLNS ON TRE BIDEWALKSANDARN DIBAGREE,

be so dufeat, not to promotes, this object of the Logislature, to misread the statute and me understand its purpose. A court is not at liberty to put limitations on general worls which are not called for by the sense, or the | objects, or the mischiefs of the enactment, and

no construction in admissible which would sauc- tion an evasion of an act."

THE HONGKONG DAILY PRESS, THURSDAY, AUGUST 4тx, 1904.

maant

The Magistrate refused to convict on the ground that the words "other thing other thing of a like nature or class as barrel, ensk, butt.

Į In the case wo are docuding the draftsman ↑ any of the following offences; that is to say :- | evidently substituted general words for the public footway, shall roll or carry any barrel Subsect. II. Every person who,,,upe say more detailed list set out in the Metropolitan cask, butt, or other thing calculated to annoy Police Act, and I take the same view of the for incommode the passengers thereon, except result as the judges did in Queen ». Payne. for the purpose of housing them or of loading any curt or carriage on the other side of the, I think that the Logislature meant to protect

footway. passengers using the footpath from being anuoyed and incommoded by obstructions caused Indeed this seems to me to bn simply a retum by the rolling of casks, or the carriage of to the sound principles of common en bulky or improper things for which the only unciated by Coke three hundred and twenty suitable place would be the roadway. It seems ad ut pro 18. of rehime 2 of Coko's Reports. be limited to cases where the cause of the ob years ago. La Hayalon's enso, A.D. 1584, report to ine strange te bold that such protection must

Parts III and IV, he says that the Barons of struction is a thing like a cask, or in the same the Exchequer resolved" thay for the sure and

genes us a cask. Are coolies to be allowed to trus interpretation of all statutes in general, berry large bundles of bamboo scaffolding poles they penal or beneficial, festrictive or enlarging

corned and considered--- of the common law, four things are to be is

Ist What was the gommen har before the

Their Lordships delivered judgment in the caso in which Hon. Sir Henry S. Berkeley, Attorney-General (instructed by Mr. P. B. L. Bowley Crown Solicitor), appeared in support of an appeal by Wai Chung, appellant, and Hung Hoi, respondent, against the decision of Mr. H. H. J. Gompertz, magistrate in disīss- ing a case in which this respondent was chard with carrying a banaboo pole' on the, pavement, At the Police Court on 27th May, and Hib June, 1994, au information preferred by Wiking of the Act? Chung, the appellant, under Section 2, sub- section 11. of Ordhunes No. 14 of 1845, chury ing the respondent with unlawfully carrying Fast, such pale being calculated to sunoy and incommode passengers thereon, on 17th May. was dimained by Mr. Comports. The appellat being dissatisfied with the Magistrate's decision as being erroneous in point of law applied for

along the footpath, in Queen's Road for in. stance? 1oking at the working of the Or- dinance 1 do not believe the Legislature in- fended the restricted meaning suggested. It seoras rather to mo that, after forbidding the rolling or carrying of barrels and casks on the roofootway, the Legislature proceeded to also for

bid the rolling or currying of any other thing any! and incommoded in their proper use of the footpath.

2nd What was the mischie aur defect for which the common law did not provide?

What remedy the Parliament hath commonwealth and

BATHING PARTIES Offer Splendid Materials for Pisture Making. Take a KODAK with you. KODAKS from $5.0) to $100.00.

3

LONG, HING & CO.,

PHOTO GOODS DEALERS, 17A, QUEEN'S ROAD,

(Same Promises as Messrs. Ah Choo).

Hongkong, 16th July, 1994,

NERNST

NERNST ELECTRIC. LIGHT.

BEAUTY OF ILLUMINATION COMBINED WITH GREAT ECONOMY

AS CHEAP AS GASI

FOR PARTICULARS APPLY TO

EDM. JOHANNSEN

OR

a bambao pole on the priblis footpaths at Prava vol and appointed to cure the disease of the which would cause reasonable people to being. A rifle when carried on a footway is Court of Criminal Appeal as to whether the overpowered by the manifest obiect of the

o euro to be stated under section of the Mugistratos' Ordinance,

The Chief Justies in delivering judgment said—In this case the respondent was charged with carrying a bamboo pole on the public footpath, at Praya East, on the 17th May, 101, such bamboo pole being calculated to suney and incommodo passengers thereon. The charge was mudo under Sub-section eleven of section of Ordinancs No, 14 of 1845, now fin the new edition of the Ordinances) numbered as Sub. section eleven of Section 3, of Ordinance No. 1 i of 1845.

That Ordinance is entitlað “An Ordinance to make provision for the Preservation of Good Order and Cleanliness and the provention of Nuisances within the Colony."

4th The trug reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges is always to maks such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the reely and to supul inventions and casions for the continuance of the mischief, pro\private commodo, and to add fores and life to the cure and remedy. according to the true intent of the makers of the Act pro bono publicu,“

Thero are certainly cases in which it has hea held that" where a general word followa parti- elar and specific words of the same nature as itself, the general ward takes is ruaning from them and is to lie pracmed to ha restricted to the same genus as those words: or in other words, ns compreheuling only things of the eame kiul as those designated by them; unlea of course there be something to show that a

wider sense was intendent."

I am quoting the lungang of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, p. 169,

I am aware that one learned judge, in 1868, in another case, said with reference to the case of the Queen. Payne, that it "foll within the

rule that if the particular worda exhaust a whole year the general word must refer to larger geant," but that rather subtle refinement is certainly not mentioned in any of the reports of the cuse itself which I have en able to discover. Assuming, however, that such distinction was present to the minds of the five judges who decided the Queen Payne, the present case appears to me to show that the larger genes intended here was

anything calculated to my or incommotie." The can of Skinner z. Shew (1893), 1 Chan- cory, p. 43, seems also to me to be in point: I not think we exire much assistance from the various cases relating to the question what is a place within the meaning of the

[our decision.

regrot

But it will be observed that he qualifies, the Batting Act, 1853" Some were over-ruled by strnetion is that construction which brings other thing, or any other article or thing annoy or incommode, are articlos of every day and provides a penalty for every person who proposition by the words "anless, el crtery." the House of Lords in Powell v The Kompton of the law for everyday acts of necessity and contended for might be uphold, because “barrel.] getting away from the fact that the con-

The section Fa question deals with puisances,

commits any of the offences spécifted in It various sub-sections.

Sub-section aleren sets out the offence thus : Upon any public footway, rolls or carries any barrel, cask, butt, or other thing calculated to annoy or incommodo the passengers thereon, uxcept for flin purpose of housing it or of load. ing any cart or carriage on the other side of tho footway."

Now, to Magistrate found, as facts, that the pole, a large, heavy bamboe carrying pole, was

carried on the respondent's shoulder, at 5.45

pm., on May 17th on the public footway ut Praya East. that it was carried in such a way ss to obstruct the footway and to bo calculated to annoy and incommode passengers thereon, nud that it was not being carried for the par pose of being home, or for the purposes of being louded on any cart or carriage on the other sido of the footway.

The Magistrate, however. refused to convict because, in his opinion, the georal word thing" following the specific words "merel, cask, or butt," takes its meaning from them and must be presumed to be restricted to articles of the xane genus,

It was argued before the Magistrata on

When we look at the gave before us we find

the words are not simply any barrel, cask. balt, or other thing," in which case soms qualification of the word "thing" would be required, but “any barrel, cask, butt, or other thing calculated to annoy or incommode the Paslagpuri,"

Is there not then hore something to show that a wider sense is intended for "other thing" than merely something ejusdem generis

with a barrel, cask, or butt? It is to include

anything resonably calculated to nuney, and footway. That is the meaning I place upon incommode reasonable passonyers on a public the words.

origin of the Ordinance in question. It was It may be well if we look at the probable pas au 24th December. 1845. It was inteml ed to put a stop to various nuisances, and sub-

suution eleven was intended to prevent passengers on public fontway from being annoyed and incommoded by the rolling or carrying, on such footpaths, of casks, barrels, and other things calculated to annoy and incommode such pas- sengers. It appears tome that sub-section eleven. as well as some of the other sub-sections of the

Park Racecourse Company, Limited, Appel Casos (1899), p. 143, and the question of “user”** greatly complicated the inquiry in the botting

house cases,

I must confess that I am not alarmed at the neospect of my decision causing hardship to. law-abiding citizens. If

my interpretation leaves the terms of the prohibition, somewhat elastic, we may, surely, attribute some measure of common sense to the Executive as well as to the Magistrates and Judges. In this case for instance, the Magistrate fooling a doubt, very naturally left the matter for the decision of this Court. If people aco, hereafter, impro- perly harassed by prosecutions for carrying, on the public footway, things not reasonably ent cuted to annoy or incominode reasonabile people, having regard to the conditions of medern life and to all the circumstances of the case. I take it the Magistrate would very properly refuse to convict and if he thought it necessary, would éensure the outs adopted by the police or prosecutor. He would regard the spirit as wel! as the letter of the Ordinance. If not, legisla tion would be called for. For example, to notice one or two instances mentioned, in argument.

I do not see why a rille properly carried by a

section in question. were taken from the Metropolitan Police Act, 2 & 3 Victoria, e. 47. | volunteer along a footpath should be calculated to aunoy any reasonably persvo. It is done

section 54, passed in 183). Sub-section 8 of that xestion renders liable to a penalty-

‚ behalf of the prosecution, and again before this court, that the general purpose of the Ordinance was. inter alia, to prohibit nuisances on

"Every person who shall roll or carry any the footway, and that the words "or other taing" were not limited in their meaning by the ask, tub, hoop, or wheel, or any ladder, plank, specific words barrel. cask, or butt," which pele, show-beard, or placard, upon any footway, proceda thera, because they must be read with except for the parpons of loading or unloading the words celculated to annoy or incomcasdeny curt or carriage, or of crossing the footway." the passengers thereon" (c., ou the footway) lich immediately follow them, and that the yea as contemplated by the Ordinance consists of any thing whatsoever so enleulated to annoy and incommode. It was also argued that the excep tion as to housing or loading did not limit the meaning of the general words.

It seems to me that the Hongkong drafts- man instead of giving a list, which might suit London requirements but not prove suffieiently exhaustive in this Colony, after specifying casks, &c., used general words intended to cover everything calentated to cause passengers on the foot path to be annoyed and incommoded.

Of course if he did not use apt words to carry The question the Court lus to decide on this out his intention the Legislature alone can appeal. is whether the words or other thing amend them, bat, giving fair maning to the calculated to annoy or incommode the pas words. is not the intention of the Legislature sengers on the footway as used in the sub-988-cfaurly enough expressed “ tion ought to be so construed as to include the lamboo pole, which has been found by the Magistrate to bo so carried as to annoy and¦ incommode passengers.

Itiselour that antes the words must be solimit ed by the preceding words as to menu only things cjusdem generis with a barrel, cask, or butt (butt meaning a large cask), they include the Jamboo pole in question.

How, then, must this Orlinonce beconstrued?

I will take a decided onse which seems to mo to be very much in point.

Section 37 of the Prison Act 1865 made everyone guilty of felony who "with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner conveys or canes to be "conveyed into any prison any mask, dress or other disguise, or any letter, or any other article or thing." A prisoner was cou victed of conveying a crowbar into a prison, and it is clear that, if the words "other article It is a penal statute, but, nevertheless, it must be or thing" must be construed as meaning only constřael so as to carry mat the intention of things ejusdem generis with masks or letters the Legislature. At one time, uo doubt, pel they would not include a'crowbar. The point statutes were construeil very strictly. I quite was reserved for the consideration of the Judgwa agree with the following passages in Sir F. B. for Crown Cases Reserved. First, the point Maxwell's work on the Interpretation of about ejunium generis was taken on argument Statutes. They uccur at pp: 307-369 of the before the five Judges who composed the Court, third edition of his Book, and are as follows and then another point was taken by the prisoner's **The rule which requires that penal and sons counsel nasly, that the former Prisons Act, other statutos shall be construed strictly was | 4 George TV, a. 64. Section #3, used the words more rigorously applied iu formor timon, whenmusk, vizet, cr other disguise, instrument or the number of capital offences was very large, arms, proper to facilitate this, oscape of any when it was still pánishable with death to cut prisonere," whereas the word "instrument,” down a cherry tree in an orchard, or to be which clearly includes a nowbar," seen for a month in the company of gypsies, omitted in the Act under which the prisoner or for a soldier or sailor to beg and wander was accused and which repealed the former without a pass. But it has lost much of its section; whereupon Chief Baron Pollock ob- force and importance in recent times, since it served:--- has become mire and inore generally recognised that the paramount duty of the judicial inter pretor is to put upon the language of the Legislatur, honestly and faithfully, its plata and rational meaning, and to promote its object.

"It does not allow the imposition of a The conviction was upheld, Pollock, C.B. restricted meaning on the words, wherevor saying: We are all of opinion that a crowbar any doubt can be suggested, for the purpose is included under the words or other article of withdrawing from the operation of the or thing. That was the case of the Quach statnte a maso which falls both within its scone 2. Payne 1 Crown Cases Reserved, p. 27, and the fair sense of its language. This would decided in 1866.

Wes

"It substitates the more general worl article or thing, al Barga Pigott adik-- Charly showing thereby that the Legislatare intended to embrace more things than were included under the old Act.”

every day in London, or do I see why

on

14

after pussel the words "or," "other" and otherwise shall, unloss. the contrary inten tion appears, be construed alisjunctively, and not as implying similarity, unless the word * similar” or “some equivalent expression is added.

There are only two possible constructions of the words "other thing by one construction they mean "other like thing" by the other construction they mean any other thing whosoever, whether like a barrel, cask, butt or not. The Magistrate adopted the former construction. The Full Court is invited to to decide that every person whe rolls or carries adopt the latter construction: that in, it is invited

on the footway anything calculated to annoy or incommodo passenger thereon is liable to summary arrest and to a fine not exceviling five pounds or, in default, to imprisonment with hard labour for three months. Boitolisorved, the offouce created by the subsection is not that of

SIEMSSEN & 00. rolling or carrying in a manner calmulated to an

55a Skinner v. Shew, viz. by an examination of the Hoy or incommode: the offence is that of rolling any reason given for the decision arrived at

no ratio devidandi appears anywhere in the language of the sub-section. In Skinner v. Show or carrying certain things calealated to any or incommoile. Let me illustrate my moani reported judgments. The case vus before the it was hell that the cjuaren generis, rula was vndoubtedly a thing calenlated to annoy or ejusdem generis rale of construction was ap action that reason for rejecting the ejusdem incommodo. though ordinarily tobwated: yot plicable in the case. The Court apparently generis construction in the present. instance the person who carries it in an entirely in held that it was not, but did not give its reason does not in my judgment exist, and the cass offensive way will be liable, if the construction for so holling. However, during the course of quoted therefore does not govern the present ease. now sought to be placed on the sub-section the argument in Youwick Schmals. L.R. For the reasons given, I have come to the cou prevail, to arrest and Bao or imprisonment. C.P. at p. 315. Willes J., referring to it. v. Payne elusion that the magistrate was right, ant that hotwithstanding that he was not carrying it in said That case falls within the rule that if the the words barrel, cask, butt or other thing calen such a wander as to annoy er incommode The particular words exhaust the whole genus. hated, &c., must be construed to mean barrel, same as regards é portmanteau, a seamstress's the general word anst refer to sune larger cask, butt, or other like thing, calculate, &c., geans, This clearly explains the ground of and not to mean barrel, cask, butt or any other stool, a tifin basket, a milliners bor, an uralella, a big hit, and scores of articles daily the decisiva in Regina . Payne. There the thing whatsoever calculated, &c. curried on the footway: all these are calculated words "mass, dress or other disguise" exhaust I think that the former construction is not to annoy or incommode passengers on the the whole gonus. and therefore the following only mors reasonable than the latter construc footway, though each one of them may perchance words are not controlled by the specite words. tion, but is also beyond doubt more in consonance so carried in a particular instance as zot but are allowed their widest moaning. If that with the whole language of the subsection, 1 actually to annoy or incomode passengers. is the explanation of the decision in Reginu also think that the latter construction strains In my judgment it is foreign to the point to v. Payne (and it is the explanation of the language in order to extend the remedy to say that we taust rely on the discretion of the that elitat Julgo Sir James Shaw Willes, annisauce not yet legislated against. If I may conviet a person for carrying the butt, do not exhaust the genus to which they pa view of the sub-section, yet, on the other police or the magistrates not to arrest or the decision does not govern the peasant case, for properly say so, whilst on the one hand I

kure the preceding particular words barrel, cask, that a bamboo pole is not within the legal umbrella on a footway. cannot a point of construction relying on the discretion belong, as it is easy to if ore merely end, it is satisfactory to know that my ennelu of the police or the magistrates to mitigate thus tions such words as tub, jar, druza, cylinder, sion exempts from liability to arrest without effect of

early, which are all within the same genus as warrant and to fine or, in default, imprisonment. It being plain that the only alternative the words barrel, cask, utt. If the words in a far larger number of persons carrying on the construction to the ejusdem generis eon-

the present case had been barrel, cask, butt or footway articles which, though calculated to a large percentage of persons within the meshes enteulated, ket, &c.," then the construction now necessity and convenience. For there is no envenience, is this Court going to impute to cask, butt'or ether thing would be words struction contended for by the appellant, the Legislature an intention to us liable to exhausting a genus; and the succeeling general though only affecting in the particular in- arvest and fine or imprisonment a large body of words would have the widest meaning. There stance a person carrying a bamboo pole, must persons carrying things which are both a neoss- fore, in my judgment. this case, which at first by force of the rutin decidende sweep into the sity and a convenience of life, when the sight appeared to be contrary to the view of the sub-section that large elass of words of the metuent are equally capable of a magistrate. becomes, on consideration, a caso indicated. I have only to add that it was very persons already construetion which limits the offences to offence

which

indirectly supports his conclusion. unfortunate that no one appeared at the hearing Another ense mentioned was that of Shillito of the appeal to urgue on behalf of the ruspam. in respect of certain specific articles which it is not a necessity or convenience of life to call or ". Thompson, LR. 1. Q.O.D), 12.

There a ent. The appeal ought in my opinion to he harry along a footway except under circum grocer was charged with possession, with intent dismissed with costs. stances provided for by the las? I hold there to sell, of cheese muft for food, the charge baing The Chief Justice.-The case will now go form that the construction which we are invited laid as a breach of a municipal bre-law sub-back to the Magistrate, and I have no doubt he to put on this subsection leads to the absurdity jecting to a penalty say person who should have will note the views I have given effect to. of supposing that the Legislature intended in his possession, with intent to sell, any meat. to interfere with the ordinary concomitant fish, poultry, or other victuals or provisions, of walking on footway and I decline uufit for the food of man. It was argued that to put that construction on the subarction, cheese was not ejusdem generis with meat and the other things mentioned in the bye-law. preferring the core sensible eden generis constriction adopted by the Magistrate, which Clearly it was, because the genus was food, of is also at least equally justified by the language which meat, fish, poultry, were only species. used.

This explanation is adequate to an understanding of the decision. The case therefore directly and strongly supports the Magistrate's con clasic, and is an authority against the appelaut instead of in his favour, for the words other victuals or provisions were construed as ejusdem generis with the precoding words meat, fish, poultry. Then there were three cases to which the Aftorney tieneral referred the Court; they wore Skinuer v. Sher (183) 1 Ch. at p. 421, Fastwood v. Miller, L.R. 9 QB. 4K, and Bows I cannot therefore. Fenwick, 9 C.P. 29. I will content myself adopt a construction which treats the dominant with remarking that Eastwood. Miller is overruled in Powell . Kompton Park Race course "Co. (1897), 2 Q.B. at p. 280, and that 1897, 2 Q. B. 281

Lord Davey in the same case, on appeal to the House of Lords, said in (3899) "A.C. at p. 183, that the distinction between Bows.c Fenwick and Gallaway v. Maries was too thin to be a good ground for decision, cases with reference to which A. L. Smith L.J.. said that Gallaway Maries had gone too for, and that the limit to which the provisions of the Betting Act 1953 could be extended had been reached in Bows r. Panwiek. Hence, one of the cases quotest has been overruled and the other has if rightly decided, could be supported only on been discreditul: Moreover, as both those cusės,

house, office, roon in the Betting Art. 1851, ure the dominant words of the subsetion. By the construction contended for. it is sought to make the words other things the dominal words. If this contention were sustained, the effect would he to strike out the words harrel, cask. butt. But I think that the Legislature put them in the sabsaction for a purpose, via. as a guide to the nature of the other thing calentated to

or incommoda,

The words barrel, cask, butt, like the words

annoy

as surplusage.

or

(See per A. C. Smith, L: J.

It was further contended that the words "roll point to two classes of things, viz, one class of thing usually moved by rolling another

earry alass of thing usually moved by carrying. On the contrary, it seems to me that the words roll or carry indicate that the things aimed at by the subsection are things which it is usual to move either by rolling or by carrying; in other words, things capable of being moved, seme- times by rolling sometimes by carrying; and that other more must be a usual mode of moving the barral, cask, butt, which are abjects sa fregnant thing.Such a construction cortainly suitsthewords

The Attorney-General-The Magistrate can detain the coolie for two minutes. It was only to decide the legal question that the append was bought.

The Chief Justice pointed out that the maximum of 45, changed under the New Ordinances to 8), was inade to cover a great number of different offences of different degrees of magnitude. Althougl. a person convicted under the sub-section could be fined the maxi-

mum axamut, yet he imagined that one-tenth would be ample. He also imagined that in the majority of cases the police would not prosecute on the first offence if the man was willing to desist, as it was only necessary in occasional canen. The as bad been in force 60 years without causing any great hardship.

The Attorney-General opined that the decision arrived at by the Court could not lead to any hardship being inflicted, but a contrary decision would have led to interminable nuisances on the footpaths.

The Court adjourned sine die.

TRADE

葡胎

· MARK.

TELEPHONE No. 13",

an umbrella of reasonable dimensions carried, a wat hy for protection against the rain, should be hell to incommode poople not selfish and unreasonable. If who the Ordinance we are discussing had boen passed after November, 1997, I do not think any difficulty could have arisen, becans Neu- tion 18 of the Interpretation Ordinance, 1897, expressly provides that in Ordinances there-ly carried as rolio. Umler this construction the basis that the spot where the baiting went the words roll or carry point to the exclusion of on was within the words "other place," because a bamboo pole from the parview of the sub-other phree" meant a place akin or equivalent HAVE YOU TRIED section. because a bamboo-pole is not a thing to a betting house or office, they are to that! which ordinarily is moved sopistings by being rolled and sometimes by being carried.

Further, the concluding words of the sub- section seem to me to throw light on the inten- tion of the Legislature. Those words are except for the purpose of housing them or of leading any eari ac carriage on the other side of the footway." and they cause the snb-section to mean that, unless you are housing barre, cask, butt or other thing, &c. or loading them fpu any cart or curiage on the other side of the In the result, I hold that the lamben pole in footway, you must not roll or carry such things this case comes within the words of the sub-ser a public footway. Now, these words housing tion and there should have been a conviction.al to house or load, and to my mind afford the Court.

and loading must refer to things which it is express my views with some diffidence as I understand. MF. Justine Smith has come to a

The words calculated to annoy "rather ply that someone bus to do the calculation or settle what things come within the category, and I think we may trust is the common senso of the Magistrates in such caROS.

different conclusion. However, by section 24

"ensts,

of Ordinance No. 3 of 1873 (new edition) where, on an appeal, there is a difference of opinion between the two judges, the Chief Justics bus double or casting vote.

The appeal will, therefore, be allowed, but in the circumstances thers will be ne order as to

I desire to add, although of course, this is no

role in this case as bad quito sufficient part of my judgment, that I consider that the punishment owing to the loss of time he has incurred in attending this appeal and taking into account his enforced attendance at the Magistracy, especially as there appears. hither- ta, to have oven some doubt as to whether what ho did was forbidden by law.

The Paiszio Judge said-In this appeal the Magistrate to couviet certain case was Full Court is asked to say that the refusal of a wrong. It appears that on 18th May lust two Chinese were separately charged at the Police Court with an offence under what was then sect. 2 sulsect. 11 of Ordinance 14 of 1545, bat what is now sect. 3 subsect. 11 of Ordinance 14 of 1845. In both cases, the alleged offence charged was that the defendant on the 17th May unlawfully did carry a bamboo pule on the pah lin footpath at Fraya East, such amhóo ja le being calculated to annoy and incómode jus- sengers on the footpath.

extent authorities in support of the ejusdem generic construction placed by the Magistrate on the now debated sub-section. These two cases were overruled or discredited because they went too far in deciding that certain spots were i places jusdem generis with a betting bouse or office, not because the words other place

wrongly construed were Next, the Court was pressed with the oss of Skinner & Co. T. Show & Co. on belislf of the appellaut. In that case the words where any person・・・・ by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings," were under the notice of

julegeneria,

further indicution of the intention of the A person had received by letter a threat of Legislature that this sub-sketion sims only at legal proceelings, and the question was whether a threat within the

Shew

things which it is customary either to take into a threat by letter was a shop or godown for storage, or to take out of language quoted The Court held that such a a shop or godown to load on a tart or carriage threat was within the words of the section, and the other side of the footway It seems that the words or otherwise were not ejnedom plain that a bamboo carrying pole is not ange, ez is with the words circulars and advertise- article which it is usual either to store in a shop ments, and included by letter. It is evident or godown, or to load on a car or earrings from the judgment of A. C. Smith, C.J. that he I du not house my nabrella, nor does a workman would have construed the words or otherwise as honse his implements of finde if such things ejusdem generis with by circular, advertisements are taken home of an evening. For the appellant, unless he had found in the section an absolute it was sought to construe the words for the prohibition against threatening legal

proceed. Furpose of louiling any cart carriago

in other words unless the object ings at all;

how. as meaning for the purpose of using it lega of the section was to prevent all threats, bamboo pole) is loatlu cart or carriage. That sover communicated; and it was because the construction may look possible when you speak substance of the section would have been missed of a bamboo pole, but it is obviously impossible if a threat by letter had been held not to be if you speak of a cask. You load casks on carts. within the actment that the Court held that you do act load carts by means of casks. The by letter was covered by the words or otherwise. words must bear that construction which makes In passing, Toberve that in Skinner thea applicable to all things to which they are it as not the action of the threat, but the construction of the sub-section fronan examins in the present case, it is the nature of n thing and intended to refor. So much, then, for the user of the throat that was under discussion; of its language and effect as evincing the act its manner of use which is in question. intention of the Lexislature.

Now, before Skinner v. Shew cu be held to I will now deal with the cases which were govern this case, the Court monst find that brought up during the argument, and first the object of the sub-section under consideration of all with the case of Regins v. Payne was to prevent the carrying on the footway of (L. R. I, C. C. R. 27.) In that case the defendant all things whatsoever calculated to annoy or was charged with conveying a crowbar into a incomode passengers; so that the exclusion prison to facilitate the escape of a prisoner of such a thing as a hanboo pole from the and it was hold that a crowbar came within the operation of the section would cause the Unfur- words "any other article or thing" in the follow substanes of the section to be missed. ing soetion:"Every person who with intent tunately, I am very clearly of opinion that the to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, object of the sub-section lu question was not Convey... into any prison any mask, the comprehensive purpose for which the other disguise, or any letter appellant ecntends, but was limited to a much be sinuller range of objects: and I have arrived at

UT

The section said isection under which the charges were laid aro penalty not exceeding five pounds who within er any other article or thing, shall

Seet. Every person shall be liable to a ¦ dress the Colony of Hongkong shall in any thorough guilty of felony This case appears in fire this conclusion by the same process by which fare or public place or adjacent thereto commit or six Reports, but in not one of the Beports in the Court of Appeal arrived at its conclusion in

YEBISU"

THE FAMOUS BEER OF JAPAN.

THIS IS A

PURE

PLEASING

POPULAR

PALATABLE PRODUCTION

816.00 PrR CASE OF 9 DOZEN PINTS.

SOLE AGENTS

H. PRICE & CO.

12. QUEEN'S ROAD CENTRAL,

[4

DE. NEWELL WILSON. DR. WILLIAM DANEX

DENTISTS.

Latest American Methods.

Reasonable Fees.

No charge for examinatiors.

Ollos houra 9 am, to I P. and 2 to 5 p.m.

31 QUEEN'S ROAD CENTRAL

(First Floor Watkin's Building

Hongkong 18th, February, 1904.